The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[J_Voy]

Vounichese must have used digraphs to represent some phonemes, like almost all "European" language do. My model has potentially 21 "letters"
   { d l r s } (4)
   { Ch Sh ee Che She eee } (6)
   { k t ke te } (4)
   { CHh CTh  CKhe CThe } (4)
   { n in iin } (3) 
even assuming that { p f } are ornamental versions of other letters, that { m } s an abbreviation, that { q x v } are non-phonetic symbols, that { a o y } are pitch or tone marks, and that everything else is an error.

I actually agree with most of this, especially the fact that in and iin may be digraphs/trigraphs, and if those are digraphs, then there are almost certainly others.

The Chinese Origin theory in fact assumes that the vellum copy was made in Europe.

The Ming Dynasty at the time had a policy called Haijin that aimed to restrict forms of foreign contact, granted people could definitely get through this, however, I don't really see how it would be likely that whoever wrote the manuscript went to China to transcribe it's sounds into a script no one could read, and besides, if we take a look at the whole Herbal section of the manuscript as an example, Herbals were common in medieval Europe, and so, i don't see how a Chinese language would fit into that, with all of this evidence, I don't really think that a language like Chinese could be a solution.

The primary claim of the COT is that the text is a natural language in the plain, and the "words" of Voynichese are words of that language.  

 
Personally, I see the possibility that Voynichese is a natural language, I just don't see the possibility that the language in particular is an East Asian language.

Maybe you meant outside of Rome and Prague?

yeah.. i meant that, it was a typo.

It seems very likely that the marginalia are much later than the main text of the VMS, and there is no reason to believe that whoever wrote them could read that text (any more than Barschius and everybody after him could).  

Handwriting analysis of the marginalia suggests otherwise, the closest handwriting matches of the marginalia found all date between 1400 and 1425. Source: 32 Minutes into You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

So, even if we could identify the language of the marginalia, that would not tell us anything about the language and origin of the main text.

I believe that because the marginalia is most likely in a European language, than it is not far fetched to say that the manuscript is in a European language.

Sincerely, J_Voy.